High wing older designs

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Aeronerd

LPR, Gliderholic
Joined
May 30, 2020
Messages
200
Reaction score
69
Been looking at all the magazines on the nar website and noticed something about the older glider designs. They are what I think are called “high wing”. Anyone know why? Here’s one from 1980. See how the wings sit on a higher part of the fuselage? Nowadays the wings sit on a flat top fuselage.
High wing.jpg
 
I think it's mostly to get more material up in the fuselage. Looking at it from another perspective, the aft part of the fuselage is relieved to reduce the weight of the fuse and lessen the need for nose weight.
 
That could be part of it. It also may be less about the wing, as that looks even with the engine, and more about getting the tail further from the exhaust.
 
Nowadays many gliders use a CF tube for a fuselage and adding a “shark head” to raise the wing is extra work for something that will probably fly away in a booming thermal.

I did it anyway to get the rear stabilizer out of the wing turbulence and to provide a place to mount a silly putty dethermalizer timer to “pop” the wing up. In the old days, we used D/T fuse and rubber band system.

Most gliders now also use an underslung vertical fin and dihedral in the rear stab.
 
My instinct is telling me that the designer thought it beneficial to get the Stabilizer out of the "Aerodynamic Wash" generated by the Wing, during flight.

Thoughts :

(1) More stable, since the "wash" would change with airspeed . . . Perhaps making it less prone to flutter during Boost ?

(2) Some trimming advantage ?

Dave F.
 
The wing downwash may be a bit lower than you think. If you want to move the stab farther from the downwash effects, move it up with a T-tail. Lowering the stab simply keeps it farther from the motor exhaust.
 
The wing downwash may be a bit lower than you think. If you want to move the stab farther from the downwash effects, move it up with a T-tail. Lowering the stab simply keeps it farther from the motor exhaust.

I was thinking only of the aerodynamic forces during boost, not during low-speed ( gliding ) flight.

As for the T-Tail, I suspect that it would be a weaker design, structurally, since the entire Empennage would only be bonded to the Fuselage at the base of the Rudder. Also, I think there would be a lot of "Torque" ( twist / flutter ) acting on the Rudder itself. It would be subject to the "double-whammy" of airflow and exhaust turbulence.

I can't recall ever seeing a T-Tail BG or RG, design . . . ?

Has anyone ever done any Wind Tunnel analysis on Gliders, especially at high velocities, simulating Boost conditions ?

Dave F.
 
Nowadays many gliders use a CF tube for a fuselage and adding a “shark head” to raise the wing is extra work for something that will probably fly away in a booming thermal.

I did it anyway to get the rear stabilizer out of the wing turbulence and to provide a place to mount a silly putty dethermalizer timer to “pop” the wing up. In the old days, we used D/T fuse and rubber band system.

Most gliders now also use an underslung vertical fin and dihedral in the rear stab.
Getting stab out of wing downwash makes alot of sense. I thought it maybe had something to do with high wing planes being mor stable because of what was called pendulum effect.
 
I was thinking only of the aerodynamic forces during boost, not during low-speed ( gliding ) flight.

As for the T-Tail, I suspect that it would be a weaker design, structurally, since the entire Empennage would only be bonded to the Fuselage at the base of the Rudder. Also, I think there would be a lot of "Torque" ( twist / flutter ) acting on the Rudder itself. It would be subject to the "double-whammy" of airflow and exhaust turbulence.

I can't recall ever seeing a T-Tail BG or RG, design . . . ?

Has anyone ever done any Wind Tunnel analysis on Gliders, especially at high velocities, simulating Boost conditions ?

Dave F.
Correct about being weaker. Anyway I haave never seen a T tail either. And besides it would have to be on the BOTTOM of the boom so it wouldn't get burned.
 
Correct about being weaker. Anyway I haave never seen a T tail either. And besides it would have to be on the BOTTOM of the boom so it wouldn't get burned.
I was certainly not advocating for T tails on B/Gs, just making a counter point. However, I have seen T tails on real sailplanes.
 
No judgement it's all good. Just commenting I have yet to see a rocket glider with that kind of tail. Maybe I'll come across one in one of those old rockestry mags on the nar website
 
Last edited:
Actually there is (or was) a glider that did employ a T-tail: the Centuri Mach 10. It's “glide” left something to be desired though, as it descended rapidly in something best described as a “controlled fall” due in part to that T-tail. The stab part was actually mounted facing forward, acting almost like a drag brake to compensate for the offset thrust line of its motor tube. It wasn't uncommon for its flight path to include a scalp-removing loop unless you used a higher thrust motor than an A or B. It was rather cool looking though, and a great attention getter.

scratch_upscale_mach10_04.jpg

Dynasoar Rocketry’s Mach 2 also had a T-tail, though the RC glider's flight path was primarily controlled by the wing ailerons.

9d30d57bbfe58952ede3695b82ce702e9839.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top